"Overcharging" the rich to offer subsidy to the poor and needy, How moral?

[Kelvinid]

I have read alot of post and I still don't understand why we support and moralize business that steals from the rich, we talk like they overcharge the rich to provide for the poor whilst they sell the actual market price which already contains a sizable gain and they collect more from the rich through appearances to make more, it's not moral if this accept from the both economic parties.

These rich people shouldn't be the one being taken advantage and help the poor ones. The government is responsible for that, not the people. So if we are seeing stores that operate like this, I can tell that the government is biased. That's because they use the rich people only as tools to extend their help to the poor ones, when they can treat both the rich and the poor equally and fairly. No one should be taken advantaged or compromised just because they are rich, and just because the government is obviously favoring the poor.

[goldkingcoiner]

In certain countries it's normal for businesses to charge customers based on their economic status. If a customer look wealthy or rich, he's charged higher than normal. If he looks poor, and possibly bargains really hard, he could end up getting a fair deal, sometimes below the cost price or eiven free of charge, typically for beggars who have nothing atall to pay... yet such model remains profitable.
Customers who don't get the idea may feel cheated and probably warn others to avoid such places. Others are understanding enough and happy to pay especially since the goods and services are relatively cheap compared to wealthy places. In Rwanda for example, I watched a foreigner trying to persuade fellow visitors to consider this fact, and for the sake of the poor.  
I believe the model is what sustains the poor... businesses are willing to keep price extremely low because of poverty. If some end up not being profitable, they are still able to survive from other people's helps.


I'm considering this topic because of the poor and needy. When we propose ideas that can help keep businesses profitable, we are burdened by the fact that they are probably going to be at the detriment of the poor and needy. So, for conscience sake, we focus on workable ideas that support the poor without affecting businesses negatively.

I think you are wrong in the context that this is what keeps the poor in poverty. That reminds me of the issue of stores throwing food away instead of giving it away because it is not profitable. But lets be honest, anyone who has the money for fresh bread is not going to take free, old bread.

But greed blinds businesses due to their fear of losing out on profit. They no longer operate in reality but rather the fantasy they themselves have dreamt up.

Charging someone based on their economic status seems fair, but in practice unrealistic because you cannot really accurately guess anybody's economic status, especially not from looking at the person.

[m2017]

In certain countries it's normal for businesses to charge customers based on their economic status.

Think of it as a "hidden" tax on stupidity wealth.

If a customer look wealthy or rich, he's charged higher than normal.

As if a buyer couldn’t just turn around and go to another seller with reasonable prices? This is a free market involving two parties, not a situation where one side can unilaterally dictate unfavorable terms.

In this situation, the "king of the hill" is the person who has the least need for what the other party possesses (whether it be a good \ service or money).

If he looks poor, and possibly bargains really hard, he could end up getting a fair deal, sometimes below the cost price or eiven free of charge, typically for beggars who have nothing atall to pay... yet such model remains profitable.

So, you’ve uncovered the magic formula for success in the marketplace: trying to haggle to secure a better price. And this approach is open to everyone, regardless of the size of their wallet.

Customers who don't get the idea may feel cheated and probably warn others to avoid such places.

If you don’t like it, don’t "eat" it. No one is forcing you to buy at inflated prices (other than your own inner idiocy).

Others are understanding enough and happy to pay especially since the goods and services are relatively cheap compared to wealthy places.

Of course, markets differ, but it is one’s personal income level that has a greater influence on "understanding". It is highly unlikely that an impoverished person would "understand" an approach where they are charged three times as much, simply because the seller deemed it an acceptable solution for them at that particular moment.

In Rwanda for example, I watched a foreigner trying to persuade fellow visitors to consider this fact, and for the sake of the poor.  

If you want to help, just give money directly to the poor. Why complicate things?

I believe the model is what sustains the poor... businesses are willing to keep price extremely low because of poverty.

The only thing business cares about is profit (it is precisely for this reason that any business comes into existence). Everything else is just fairy tales.

If some end up not being profitable, they are still able to survive from other people's helps.

Well, then the business simply closes down. Get rid of any illusions: business is an extremely aggressive environment (it is difficult to compete) with no room for charity.

I'm considering this topic because of the poor and needy. When we propose ideas that can help keep businesses profitable, we are burdened by the fact that they are probably going to be at the detriment of the poor and needy. So, for conscience sake, we focus on workable ideas that support the poor without affecting businesses negatively.

Do you own a business? I’m certain that once your family’s well-being and your children’s future depend on your own business, you’ll start to view the idea of ​​"supporting the poor" at the expense of that business in a very different light.

You’re just a poor person who wants to "survive" without doing any work, by living off someone else’s business - is that it?

[tugba]

I think it’s unreasonable to charge someone higher than the normal price just because you “feel” like they are rich. I might dress good, and smell like a million bucks but that doesn’t mean I am wealthy. So my question to you OP is what exactly is the metric that you use to determine who is a rich customer? Because if I wanted expensive I would go to the big brands and shop.

Yes man. Most of the times, those that looks rich are actually the ones that are poor. While those that are looking poor or simple, are actually the ones that are the real rich. It is possible to notice this. It was like rich people don't need to prove anything anymore. They already confident with what they have in mind and on their homes. Plus it also helps them being to avoid being robbed or being bullied/teased by middle/low-class individuals.

my question to you OP is what exactly is the metric that you use to determine who is a rich customer?

I think mannerism of being rich can be learned even by the poor but true rich must act naturally. This should be the main basis. But if we focus on physical appearance like what they wear. There should be a sign to tell if a fake rich also wear fake items.

if I wanted expensive I would go to the big brands and shop.

In addition to what I said earlier, not just by presenting or looking simple, but rich are literally very frugal. But this is why they achieve their current status. They prioritize saving and investment more than the non-essential stuff.

[YUriy1991]

These rich people shouldn't be the one being taken advantage and help the poor ones. The government is responsible for that, not the people. So if we are seeing stores that operate like this, I can tell that the government is biased. That's because they use the rich people only as tools to extend their help to the poor ones, when they can treat both the rich and the poor equally and fairly. No one should be taken advantaged or compromised just because they are rich, and just because the government is obviously favoring the poor.

I agree with your point, the government must act impartially to protect the interests of both groups the wealthy and the poor ensuring that both are treated equally and without discrimination. Furthermore, I believe the government should implement regulations to oversee commerce, ensuring that no party is unfairly harmed. The government can collect tax from the wealthy to fund high quality national infrastructure, this in turn fosters a favorable investment climate. Such infrastructure would also enable the poor to access opportunities and pursue their own economic endeavors as they would have the same high quality facilities available to them as the wealthy free from discrimination.

[Leahized]

If you want to build a business, focus on profit so it can continue to run. If it's about humanity, don't do business because that won't be aligned. Business is still a business that seeks profit, no matter which group of people buy from. An idea I suggest trying is donating profits to charity. I believe that this way the business will continue to run and we will continue to help people.

Helping poor individuals from any business institution, even by reducing the price of products, solely depends on conscience. Yes, we are aware that business institutions are operated solely for the purpose of making a profit. But in some cases, the situation is created differently from a humanitarian standpoint. Helping orphans and needy individuals does not significantly impact the business. In my city, many restaurant owners provide free food to such impoverished individuals.

However, your suggestion is reasonable. This way, it does not greatly affect the business and financial assistance can be provided without wasting time. The authority controlling charity performs all responsibilities.

[Sarah Jordan]

Your aim is a favorable business for both the poor and rich that won't affect ones business profits negatively.

As a business owner focusing on both poor and rich to sell. You can set your prices in a way both the poor and rich can buy from you without you running on a loss. For instance if you buy a bag of crayfish for 10000 and you're getting 6 custard rubbers from a bag and selling 2500 each you aren't running on a loss. Both can still purchase without breaking the bank.
And there's no one been cheated. Everyone is buying at same price and the rich can buy as much as he or she can buy as prices are fair.

[slapper]

In certain countries it's normal for businesses to charge customers based on their economic status. If a customer look wealthy or rich, he's charged higher than normal. If he looks poor, and possibly bargains really hard, he could end up getting a fair deal, sometimes below the cost price or eiven free of charge, typically for beggars who have nothing atall to pay... yet such model remains profitable.
Customers who don't get the idea may feel cheated and probably warn others to avoid such places. Others are understanding enough and happy to pay especially since the goods and services are relatively cheap compared to wealthy places. In Rwanda for example, I watched a foreigner trying to persuade fellow visitors to consider this fact, and for the sake of the poor.  
I believe the model is what sustains the poor... businesses are willing to keep price extremely low because of poverty. If some end up not being profitable, they are still able to survive from other people's helps.


I'm considering this topic because of the poor and needy. When we propose ideas that can help keep businesses profitable, we are burdened by the fact that they are probably going to be at the detriment of the poor and needy. So, for conscience sake, we focus on workable ideas that support the poor without affecting businesses negatively.

I think you are wrong in the context that this is what keeps the poor in poverty. That reminds me of the issue of stores throwing food away instead of giving it away because it is not profitable. But lets be honest, anyone who has the money for fresh bread is not going to take free, old bread.

But greed blinds businesses due to their fear of losing out on profit. They no longer operate in reality but rather the fantasy they themselves have dreamt up.

Charging someone based on their economic status seems fair, but in practice unrealistic because you cannot really accurately guess anybody's economic status, especially not from looking at the person.

@Ucy describes haggling as the poorer folks' model. It's actually the older one. Fixed price tags are pretty new. Old isn't necessarily bad. It's just that old models have costs attached to them that we'd rather forget. To get the budget rates, you have to look and act poor. Maybe beg a little. That wears people down. Fixed rates allow a down-and-out to walk into a shop and buy something without having to justify themselves. We take that for granted. We don't realize how great it is until it's taken away.
And who pays the higher rates? Foreigners, mostly. Rich locals know the game and dress down. So guessing someone's wealth from how they look does not really work anyway.

You say this model keeps the poor in poverty. I think it works the other way round, though. Poverty breeds the haggling economy, not the reverse. In places where there is little welfare and low incomes in general, you get cash-only economies and very active haggling. In fact, the shopkeeper often has to step in and do the job of the social worker.
If you eradicate haggling tomorrow, you won't get richer customers. You'll get hungrier ones.

You're right about one thing. When prices are just guesswork, nobody keeps records. Well, guess what? No records means no credit history. No credit history means no loans. So small businesses stay small, and their customers stay exactly where they are. Keeping prices low out of sympathy may keep everyone jolly for now. But is it realy helping anyone get ahead? Or just helping them stay stuck a bit more comfortably?

[Cheema02]

For an open market all including the rich, wealthy and the poor operates in same price tag but off general market price tags are always different. Talking of price difference between different classes of individuals,  it can only depend on where the commodity is gotten from, for example the rich do prefer going to a rich and nice shops for there shopping with reasons of getting quality products there the prices maybe very different from that of those getting it from a flat market where prices are normal to all. Apart from this situation,  it will be difficult identifying classes while purchasing any commodity.

As in markets prices of the same products are the same in every shop and anybody who wants to purchase the products regardless of whether he is poor or rich The main difference is the resources and choices. Obviously, when you have wealth, your preferences automatically move toward expensive and quality products. On the other hand, middle-class people buy according to their resources.

It's a myth that expensive things are best in quality. I have seen many products that are at very reasonable prices and in quality they beat the best brands. So, in terms of brands, local staff are also present; it depends on the strategy of the purchaser. If the purchaser is wise and has money, he buys quality products, and it doesn't matter how much he spends. But for the middle class, it's difficult to maintain quality. He just prefers to meet the need